Group 1: On-site Supervision Case - The issuer failed to consider installment payments and settlement discounts in some engineering contracts, leading to inaccurate progress calculations and insufficient attention from sponsors and accountants [1][2] - The issuer's income accounting was affected, but the overall impact on financial performance was minor, and corrections were made [2][3] - The sponsor did not adequately verify the sufficiency of third-party payment evidence, and there were formal flaws in interview records [2] Group 2: Review Cases - Case 1: The issuer's client performance significantly declined, increasing reliance on the photovoltaic industry, which is subject to market fluctuations [5][6] - The issuer had a dependency on a single client, with no significant competitive advantage in proprietary technology, leading to the withdrawal of its IPO application [5][6] - Case 2: The issuer operated in a fragmented market with low technical barriers, and its revenue was primarily from OEM for brand companies, with declining R&D investment [7][8] Group 3: Case Insights - For issuer A, the significant changes in the photovoltaic industry and the lack of competitive technology led to the withdrawal of its IPO application [6] - For issuer B, the intense competition and lack of innovation resulted in a low market share and the rejection of its IPO application [8]